From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role |
Date: | 2012-03-16 04:39:48 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEFU7mdoyBDPJ-zNo2cX4VMXqXVxDVdkOLZozJmpE2zPg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Parallel to pg_cancel_backend, it'd be nice to allow the user to just
> outright kill a backend that they own (politely, with a SIGTERM),
> aborting any transactions in progress, including the idle transaction,
> and closing the socket.
+1
> I imagine the problem is a race condition whereby a pid might be
> reused by another process owned by another user (doesn't that also
> affect pg_cancel_backend?).
Yes, but I think it's too unlikely to happen. Not sure if we really
should worry about that.
> Shall we just do everything using the
> MyCancelKey (which I think could just be called "SessionKey",
> "SessionSecret", or even just "Session") as to ensure we have no case
> of mistaken identity? Or does that end up being problematic?
What if pid is unfortunately reused after passing the test of MyCancelKey
and before sending the signal?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-03-16 04:59:20 | Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-16 04:06:17 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |